The librarian, Steven Jan Vander Ark, who has the face of a schoolboy and resembles Harry Potter, was trying to publish “The Harry Potter Lexicon,” but Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers Entertainment, the company that produces the “Harry Potter” movies, sued, citing copyright infringement.
In a 68-page ruling [pdf] released on Monday, Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. of United States District Court in Manhattan wrote, “Plaintiffs have shown that the Lexicon copies a sufficient quantity of the Harry Potter series to support a finding of substantial similarity between the Lexicon and Rowling’s novels.”

It is interesting to me that Rowling did not offer to settle this by paying Mr. Vander Ark for his work. In my eyes, Rowling has forever tarnished the Harry Potter series by her onslaught against this poor man – a devoted fan who resembles Harry Potter. I see a movie in this. Mr. Vander Ark should contact an agent. As for Mrs. Rowling, her greed knows no bounds. Obviously the evil characters in her books spring from her own inner demons to hurt the meek. The Potter series is no classic and will end up as ashes upon the trashes.

Shame on Rowling and her publisher. Even more shame on this judge, who has issued a decision that is illogical and flies in the face of long-standing precedents in intellectual property law. Reference works ABOUT a creative work, like the Harry Potter series, do not infringe that work, if anything they enhance it. And anyone should have the right to prepare and publish such a work.

She even praised the lexicon and said she used the online version for quick reference when writing. Now she takes him to court when he goes to make it a hard copy (printed) version. This is a sad day. Greed has come to her or her publisher.

Lyle, why would she pay someone else for merely reorganizing her own work? He intended to do something that would infringe her copyright. She had ever right to do what she did, and it all ended the way it should have.

An author must protect her rights from all who would steal, even if the intention of the borrower is honorable, otherwise a precedent is established making it more difficult to defend her claim against further plagarists.

What a PR nightmare for her. I guess she doesn’t have to care that, regardless of what is right or wrong, in the eyes of the media/public, this will come across as a dragon lady move? I can’t decide if doing it shows that she 1) knew how it would make her seem and stuck to her gut feeling principles 2) showed an ignorance of how this will make her seem 3) really is a dragon lady. I guess she has the Queen as a role model. Good luck, Rowling, with your billions, I hope you are not the bitter, desperate, cheap-ass this makes you appear to be.

The problem is (one problem) that if a writer allows one person to use the material, it theoretically opens the floodgates for anyone else who wants to publish something. What if the next one is, say, is something really objectionable? (Use your imagination). As the creator, Rowling naturally wants to protect what she made from that sort of thing.
Also, the copyrights include the right to make “derivatives,” e.g., sequels and such. So it wouldn’t make sense for Rowling to pay Van Ark for his work (as suggested above), since she owns the rights to do that anyway.

People, it’s not her intellectual property if it’s a reference book. That’s fair use. See, for example, the “Harbours and High Seas” guide to the Patrick O’Brian novels – not authorized, but not challenged, quite rightly. I do not know what this judge is thinking.

Copyrights MUST be protected, or authors won’t publish for wide distribution. Those who find fault with the author for Protecting HER CREATION would apparently just as soon the Harry Potter world was NEVER CREATED. A fan stealing from you is just as bad as an enemy stealing from you. Shame on this would-be profiteer, and bravo to the judge for upholding the law!

Over the course of years countless documents much like this “lexicon” have come out regarding Lord of the Rings and the Narnia books by CS Lewis, 2 literary serials that it would be fair to liken the Potter books. So there is precedent. And Rowling said herself that she referenced the website where this lexicon was posted while she was composing her naratives to refresh her memory. Thought there may not be any original composition involved. Just having this information collected in one place constitutes an act of creation. This is simply another boldfaced example of a major corporate entity, in their weasle-like way, beating down the little guy.

This ruling is a shame. The lexicon was useful. There were essays and comments and timelines. I think that this was done to Mr. Vander Ark because he beat Warner Bros. and Rowling to it. If anything the information on this site, which would have been in the book, was a wonderful source. Warner Bros. and Rowling should be ashamed of themselves. He states quite clearly on his site that the copyrights went to J.K. Rowling and Warner.

This site probably has some ideas that English teachers could use to stimulate conversation in class. An encyclopedia is a tool. Therefore it is a duplication of information that may or may not be easily accessible. In my opinion this was an unnecessary lawsuit.

No, Rowling herself clearly is protective of her creations. I can see why she would be; when her writing is driven by how the characters exist in her head, it can be troubling to have other people saying, “No, THIS is why Ron was haunted by the thought that Hermione loved Harry.” Vander Ark, by moving his Lexicon from free internet access to a published, for-profit work, was trying to cash in on Rowling’s creativity.

I compare this to the difference between some bands’ willingness to let fans tape their concerts for private use and sharing, and those same bands’ crackdown on the for-profit sale of bootlegs. I have no problem with a creative person saying that he is the only one who can profit on his creativity.

I can’t wait to see the decision itself, since it’s the nuances of the case that have potentially damaging effects. Protecting copyright is one thing, but some of JRK’s claims went far beyond traditional copyright law. (Claiming that the Lexicon could hurt sales of her *future* book is not something that copyright law protects.) I hope that the decision was narrow enough so that it doesn’t stop future authors from writing reference guides, since that would be a great loss.

I am reminded of John Adams’ defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial. He clearly stood against every fiber of what the British stood for, but recognized that the law must be upheld, regardless of whom he represented. I concede this is nowhere near the level of importance, but I think the principle still applies. The law is the law.

It seems to me that no one here has ever actually produced intellectual property. If you had, then you might have a different view. Harry Potter belongs to J.K. Rowling and to no one else, no matter how proprietary others may feel about the works and the characters. Did you ever think that perhaps Ms. Rowling herself might someday like to publish a guide? Or sell rights to publish a guide?

As for her “zillions”, it seems to me that she earned every last penny, and the money too belongs to her. If she wishes to give some of that money away, well, that’s great. But if she doesn’t, that is not greed. The whole thing is hers in the first place. Exactly how much of your money have you given to strangers who’ve capitalized on your work? Thought so.

This line of thinking is part of the disturbing pattern developing in society where people think everything is free for the taking. Somebody writes and records a song? Go ahead – steal it. Why pay the artist – isn’t he already rich? Well, I don’t know anything about Mr. Vander Ark, but I do not see how he ever imagined he’d get away with this. At best he seems a dim schnook, and at worst, a parasite. And Ms Rowling looks like an artist holding onto what’s rightfully hers. It’s not for you to take it away from her. When you take things that don’t belong to you, it’s called stealing.

Dozens and dozens of reference books about the Harry Potter series have been published. This particular one extensively quoted and paraphrased prose from the original fiction, written by J.K. Rowling, without acknowledging the source. That, not the entire genre of reference books on modern fiction, was the cause of the suit. For example, I have not read the “Harbours and High Seas” guide HCG refers to, but if it was not challenged by the copyright holders, I would guess that it does not quote stretches of Patrick O’Brian’s prose without citations.

Just look at Japanese anime and manga as a prime example. Fan service heavily influence the success of a series. Some of this fan-created content is published and sold in honya (bookstores) and other shops.

It is her brainchild and she has every right to sue, but over zealously fighting the fan base is deserving of retribution from disgruntle fans. But then again few people stand up for their beliefs.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that every page of the Lexicon site comes with the following warning: “NO PART OF THIS PAGE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PERMISSION.” Vander Ark doesn’t appear to be a wholehearted member of the “information wants to be free!” camp. He wants to control his work too.

What's Next

Looking for New York Today?

New York Today is still going strong! Though no longer on City Room, New York Today continues to appear every weekday morning, offering a roundup of news and events for the city. You can find the latest New York Today at nytoday.com or in the morning, on The New York Times homepage or its New York section. You can also receive it via email.

Lookin for Metropolitan Diary?

Metropolitan Diary continues to publish! Since 1976, Metropolitan Diary has been a place for New Yorkers, past and present, to share odd fleeting moments in the city. We will continue to publish one item each weekday morning and a round-up in Monday's print edition. You can find the latest entries at nytimes.com/diary and on our New York section online.

About

City Room®, a news blog of live reporting, features and reader conversations about New York City, has been archived. Send questions or suggestions by e-mail.